
%2. 



I 



^ 962 
144 
opy 1 



"Men who their duties know, 

But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain, 

Prevent the long aimed blow, 

And crush the tyrant, while they rend the chain, — 

These constitute a state." 



IRELAND and SECESSION 

AN ANSWER TO LLOYD GEORGE 

By THOMAS H. MAHONY 
OF THE BOSTON BAR 

FOR THE BENCH AND BAR COMMITTEE 
IRISH VICTORY FUND 

t 
WITH A FOREWORD BY JUSTICE DANIEL F. COHALAN 



In view of the statements of Lloyd George in the House of Commons on 
March 31st, 1920, and the general circulation of similar arguments throughout 
the United States, by opponents of the principle of self-determination applied to 
Ireland; that Ireland's claim to independence is the assertion of a claim to se- 
cession comparable to that of the Southern States in 1861, the undersigned, who 
have been appointed by the Friends of Irish Freedom to represent this section in 
matters regarding information as to the movement in general and especially as to 
the need of American citizens to form and express their opinions fully and at all 
times upon the cause of human freedom wherever it may be attacked, believe 
that this is an appropriate time for the publication and distribution of this 
article. 

EDW. P. McSWEENEY, 
DANIEL T. O'CONNELL. 
Boston, April 6th, 1920. 



FOREWORD. 

The writer of the following article is one of the brilliant group of in- 
tellectuals who, responding to the call of their blood, have in the last two 
years done so much to make our country xmderstand the question of Ireland 
and its importance to mankind — and America in particular — in the world- 
wide contest that is now being waged between the forces of liberty and 
imperialism. 

Studious, painstaking, scrupulously fair to his opponent, he presents 
lucidly and temperately his argimients and his facts. 

Lloyd George and the other spokesmen for English tyraimy no longer 
attempt to deny the patent fact that the people of Ireland are overwhelm- 
ingly in favor of independence and of republican government. With char- 
acteristic opportimism the English Premier, now seeks to hold iminformed 
American opinion, not by the old falsehoods that Ireland does not seek 
liberty, or that Irishmen are imable to govern their country, but by trying 
to draw a parallel between the status of Ireland and that of the former Con- 
federate States. 

Mr. Mahony shows how utterly without foundation is the argument 
of Mr. Lloyd George and proves conclusively that there is no analogy what- 
ever between the two cases. 

I hope he may, in the near future, amplify his paper so as to cover the 
entire history of England's relations with her Parliament in Ireland, which, 
in spite of much good done by it in many directions, was never really rep- 
resentative of the people of Ireland. 

Lloyd George has less than a century and a half to go back to find a 
real secession from England when the Thirteen Colonies, against the will 
of English Imperialism, left the control of the English Ruling Class and set 
up our matchless institutions of liberty on this Continent. 

The American Revolution was not alone right — it was turned out to be 
one of the greatest blessings a Beneficent Creator has bestowed upon man- 
kind. 

May the world, within the year, hail as another milestone on himianity's 
march of progress, the international recognition of the Republic of Ireland. 

^ ^ , . ., ^,, ,_.^ DANIEL F. COHALAN. 

New York, April 7th, 1920. 



LLOYD GEORGE ON "SECESSION.^' 

"I think it right to say that any attempt at secession will be 
fought with the same determination, the same resources, the 
same resolve as the Northern States put into the fight against 
the Southern States." 

(Lloyd George, on the Outline of 4th Home Rule Bill.) 

"De Valera is in exactly the same position as Jefferson Davis 
before the American Civil War. If he insists, it will lead exactly 
to the same methods of oppression as the Northern States of 
America used to avoid secession." 

(Lloyd George, House of Commons — March 31, 1920.) 

2 
ci from 



^(.^ 



^v^ 



IRELAND AND SECESSION. 

AN ANSWER TO LLOYD GEORGE. 
By THOMAS H. MAHONY. 



England through Lloyd George contends that the "Irish 
Question" is a purely domestic matter, and being so Ireland's 
struggle for independence is equivalent to secession, analogous to 
the attempt of the South to secede from the Union in 1861, and 
will be just as bitterly contested. 

If Ireland is a nation, her struggle to establish an independent 
existence, free from foreign control, the validity of which has ever 
been denied, cannot be secession. Two nations involved in any 
discussion or dispute necessarily create an international ques- 
tion. But Ireland has been for centuries, and is a nation, — Lloyd 
George to the contrary, notwithstanding. 

It has distinct, natural, geographical boundaries, never re- 
quiring the imaginative hand of a peace conference to trace them. 
It has its individual history, traditions, customs, language, 
music. Its people have a definite national consciousness, dis- 
tinct racial characteristics, and particular interests found in no 
other group of people. As early as the fifth century, Ireland, 
with Rome, Spain and Germany were the four nations of Europe. 
Not until the Council of Constance in 1415 did England attain 
that dignity ; in that very council asserting that Ireland was then 
the oldest nation of the world. 

"Nations or States," says Vattel, "are bodies politic, 
societies of men united together for the promotion of 
their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts 
of their combined strength. Such a society has her 
affairs and her interests. She deliberates and takes reso- 
lutions in common, thus becoming a moral person who 
possesses an understanding and a will pecidiar to hersielf , 
and is susceptible of obligations and rights." 

While Ireland has been controlled and dominated by Eng- 
land, it has been solely by reason of "vis major" and never by 
the "consent of the governed." Ireland never has sacrificed its 
national spirit or its national consciousness, and the law of pre- 

3 



scription never operates against the sovereignty of a nation. If 
Ireland, with these attributes, is not a nation, what nation is a 
"nation"? It may be argued that the one indispensable attri- 
bute of nationhood is lacking in Ireland, i.e., sovereignty. But 
what is sovereignty ? 

"Abstractly sovereignty resides in the body of the 
nation and belongs to the people. In international law 
a state is considered a sovereign when it is organized 
for political purposes and permanently occupies a fixed 
territory. It must have an organized government capable 
of enforcing law and be free from all external control." 
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Vol. 2, page 1016. 

History reveals the fact that Ireland was a nation with all 
the attributes of a nation set forth above. Her nationhood was 
recognized in the very title assumed by the King of England, as 
King of "the United Kingdom and Ireland." In 1541 an 
Irish Parliament, convened by Henry VIII, declared Ireland 
to be a Kingdom and chose Henry VIII of England to be "King 
of Ireland." The two countries, as pointed out by Swift in his 
"Drapier Letters," did not constitute one kingdom; each re- 
mained a separate, distinct and independent kingdom. 

In 1687 the Irish Parliament, acting in its independent ca- 
pacity, acknowledged James II to be King, although in the pre- 
vious year the "Convention" Parliament of England had declared 
the crown abdicated by James II and had recognized William 
and Mary. 

In 1782 Grattan's Resolution was adopted by the Irish 
Parliament and made a "permanent" settlement by the British 
Parliament in the "Act of Renunciation." It provided that, 
"No power on earth but the King, Lords and Commons of Ire- 
land is competent to make laws for Ireland." By it England 
renounced "forever" all claims to legislate for Ireland. The 
Act of George I, under which England claimed the right to legis- 
late for Ireland as for a dependency was definitely abrogated. 

The arrangement of 1782 "was no provisional plan, but a 
final and determinate settlement between the legislatures of the 
two countries" known and understood to be such by both Eng- 
land and Ireland. Ireland then in 1782 was again formally 
recognized by England as a distinct nation. Ireland has never 
ceased to be a nation. 

MacNeill's Irish Const. Hist. 187-188. 
Pariiamentary Register, VIII, 11-15. 



Mr. Asquith, while Prime Minister, recognized this when he 
said a few years ago: 

"There are few cases in history ... I myself know of 
none ... of a nationhood at once so distinct, so persist- 
ent ... as the Irish. . . . Ireland is a nation. ..." 

But England answers, whatever independent status Ireland 
had in 1782 was surrendered by the Act of Union, passed by the 
Irish Parliament in 1800; that by such Act, Ireland became an 
integral part of the British Empire; that thereafter any attempt 
of Ireland to regain an independent status would amount to 
secession. 

A. IS IRELAND'S STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE 
EQUIVALENT TO SECESSION? 

Lloyd George, some time ago, in outlining the then probable 
Home Rule Bill for Ireland, and again recently, said that Eng- 
land would fight Ireland's secession to the bitter end, as the 
North fought the South in our Civil War. 

If Ireland were legally and in reality an integral part of the 
Empire, the argument of "secession" might carry some weight, 
but the argument against Ireland based upon the analogy of our 
Civil War has no weight. It is but necessary to compare the situa- 
tion in the colonies in 1789 with the situation in Ireland in 1800 
to see how completely different they are. 

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND SECESSION. 

The issue raised by the Southern States, which led to the 
Civil War, was that of the superiority of State rights over Na- 
tional rights, or the right of a State to withdraw from the Union. 
This issue had been disposed of in 1819 long before the Civil 
War by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
the famous case of McCulloch v. Maryland. In his opinion, one 
of his greatest upon Constitutional law. Chief Justice Marshall 
sets forth most clearly the development of our National Gov- 
ernment : 

"The Convention which framed the Constitution was 
indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instru- 
ment when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, 
without obligation, or pretensions to it. 

5 



... by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State 
Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. 
They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can 
act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by 
assembling in Convention. 

From these Conventions the constitution derives its 
whole authority. The government proceeds directly 
from the people: is 'ordained and established' in the 
name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, *in 
order to form a more perfect union.' . . . 

But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or 
reject it; and their act was final. It required not the 
affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State 
governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, 
was of complete obligation, and bound the State sov- 
ereignties. 

To the formation of a league, such as was the con- 
federation, the State sovereignties were certainly com- 
petent. But when, *in order to form a more perfect 
union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance 
into an effective government, possessing great and sov- 
ereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the 
necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its 
powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by 
aU. 

The government of the Union, then (whatever may 
be the influence of this fact on the case), is, emphatically 
and truly, a government of the people. In form and in 
substance it emanates from them. Its powers are 
granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on 
them, and for their benefit." 

After the Civil War the same issue was again adjudicated 
by the United States Supreme Court in the following cases: in 
the case of Lane Coimty v. Oregon (1868), 7 Wall. 71 at page 76, 
Chief Justice Chase makes the following statements : 

"The people of the United States constitute one na- 
tion, imder one government, and this government, within 
the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is 
supreme. 

Both the States and the United States existed before 
the Constitution. The people, through that instnunent, 
established a more perfect union by substituting a na- 
tional government, acting, with ample power, directly 
upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate govern- 
ment, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only 
upon the States. 

The general condition was well stated by Mr. Madison 
in the Federalist, thus : 'The Federal and State govem- 

6 



ments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the 
people, constituted with different powers and designated 
for different purposes." 

In the case of Texas v. White (1868), 7 Wall. 700 at page 
724, Chief Justice Chase makes the following statement : 

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial 
and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, 
and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, 
kindred principles, similar interests and geographical 
relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the 
necessities of war, and received definite form, and char- 
acter, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By 
these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' 
And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to 
the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was or- 
dained *to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to 
convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than 
by these words. What can be indissoluble if a per- 
petual Union, made more perfect, is not?" 

and on page 726 the following : 

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Con- 
stitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the con- 
vention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of 
Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give 
effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were 
utterly without operation in law. The obligations of 
the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citi- 
zen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, re- 
mained perfect and imimpaired. It certainly follows 
that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citi- 
zens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, 
the State must have become foreign, and her citizens 
foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for 
the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war 
for conquest and subjugation." 

Lord Bryce has recognized this principle in his statement : 

"The Union is not a mere compact between common- 
wealths dissoluble at pleasure, but an instnmient of 
perpetual efficacy, emanating from the whole people, and 
alterable by them only in the manner which its own 
terms prescribe." 

(Am. Commonwealth I, 315, 316.) 

In the case of the United States, therefore, we find a 
voluntary agreement of all the people of the country estab- 

7 



lishing the National Government, an act which the people, 
in whom rested sovereignty, had the power of performing. It 
was not the creation of a federation by the individually supreme 
and sovereign states. When, therefore, in 1861 a part of the 
people, gathered within the territorial limits of certain states, 
undertook to break and set at naught that agreement, to abrogate 
the Constitution without the consent of the great majority of 
the people of the country, who were the remaining parties to 
the agreement, that great majority were justified legally and 
morally in preventing the attempted secession. The only legal 
way to change the Constitution was as set forth in the Constitu- 
tion, viz., amendment. 

2. THE ACT OF UNION AND SECESSION. 

In 1783, as has been stated, England renounced forever all 
claim to legislate for Ireland. No other power than the King, 
the Lords and Commons of Ireland legally could legislate for Ire- 
land. The sovereignty to the knowledge of England then rested 
in the Irish people, the Irish Parliament being the trustee of the 
legislative power under a trust delegated to it by the Irish people. 
This British Act of Renunciation of 1782 declared this sovereignty 
of the Irish was "established and ascertained forever, and shall 
at no time hereafter be questioned, or questionable." 

The vital question, therefore, is as to what effect the Act 
of Union had upon Ireland's sovereignty. Was it surrendered 
by the Irish people? Did Ireland thereby become an integral 
part of the British Empire? 

"A body or society, when once organized as a State by 
an established government, must remain so until it is 
destroyed. This may be done by disintegration of its 
parts, by its absorption into and identification with some 
other State or nation, or by the absolute and total disso- 
lution of the ties which bind the society together. We 
know of no other way in which it can cease to be a State. 
No change of its internal polity, no modification of its 
organization or system of government, nor any change in 
its external relations short of entire absorption in another 
State, can deprive it of existence or destroy its identity." 
(Wheaton, Int. Law, sec. 22.) 

England insists that by the Act of Union, Ireland was "ab- 
sorbed" into the British Empire. No contention has been made 
by anybody that Ireland's parts have disintegrated, or that the 
ties which bound it together have been dissolved. If, there- 

8 



fore, Ireland did not voluntarily allow itself to be so "absorbed," 
England's case upon this point must fall, for unless the Act of 
Union was voluntary, it offers no basis for England's claim. 

(a) WAS THE ACT OF UNION THE "VOLUNTARY" ACT 
OF THE SOVEREIGN IRISH PEOPLE? 

From 1792, which marked the beginning of Grattan's Parlia- 
ment, until long after the Act of Union, the franchise was not en- 
joyed by Catholics or Presbyterians. Yet approximately three- 
quarters of the Irish people were Catholics and therefore not 
represented in the Irish Parliament of 1800. Of the 300 mem- 
bers of that Parliament, 154 were in reality nominated by 53 
Peers, 91 were so nominated by 52 Commons, the balance only 
could fairly be said to have been elected. More than two-thirds 
of the Parliament was controlled by 105 men, yet Ireland then 
contained more than 4,000,000 people. (MacNeill, Irish Const. 
Hist. p. 190.) 

"It was not the Parliament of the whole people — it 
was chosen exclusively by the representatives of the 
Protestant minority, while the Catholic majority were 
excluded from all share of political power. It was not 
chosen by the voice even of the Protestant people. 
Nearly two-thirds of its members were sent in by a 
system of nomination from which all popular influence 
was excluded." (Sir Isaac Butt, Nov. 18, 1873.) 

Confirming the above we find the following: It, the Act of 
Union, was "not supported by the voice of the country at large." 
(Cornwallis Corresp. Ill, 52.) 

Manifestly the validity of the Act of Union does not rest 
upon the consent of the Catholics of that time. 

"Twenty-seven counties have petitioned against the 
measure. . . . Though there were 707,000 who had signed 
petitions against the measure, the total nimiber of those 
who declared themselves in favor of it did not exceed 
3,000. . . . Could a nation in more direct terms express 
its disapprobation of a political measure than Ireland 
has done of a legislative union with Great Britain? In 
fact, the nation is nearly unanimous." (Lord Grey, 
1800, on the Union.) 

It is an elementary principle of law that any transaction 
tinged with fraud, bribery, corruption or coercion is void. But 
the carrying of the Act of Union was marked by all these nullify- 

9 



ing features. Reference to the Statesman, Gladstone, or the 
Historian, Lecky, reveal the fact that the Act of Union was 
carried only by means of the most outrageous fraud, bribery and 
corruption. 

The proposal for the union came from England and not 
Ireland. (Castlereagh Corresp. I, 393, 394.) (Lecky, Hist, of 
Eng. 18th Cent. VIII, 298.) Its principal motive was the stop- 
page of Ireland's growing prosperity. (Castlereagh Correspond- 
ence, II, p. 45.) It was "the only means of preventing Ireland 
from growing too great and powerful." (Govt. Pamphlet, Sec- 
retary Cooke, 1798, cited in Reg. v. O'Connell, defendant's 
argument.) 

Lord Comwallis, Lord Lieutenant, under whom the Act of 
Union was put through the Irish Parliament, stated, "I despise 
and hate myself for engaging in such dirty work." (Comwallis 
Corresp. Ill, 39-40, 100-102.) 29 Irish peerages were created, 
20 Irish peers were promoted, and 6 English peerages granted for 
Union services. (Comwallis Corresp. Ill, 318.) 

In speaking of the creation of peerages, etc., Lecky says : 

"In the majority of cases, however, these peerages 
were simply palpable open bribes intended for no other 
purpose than to secure a majority in the House of 
Commons." (Hist. 18th Cent. VIII, 339.) 

By compelling vacation of parliamentary seats under the 
"Place Bill," Comwallis secured 63 vacancies and filled them 
with staunch Unionists. (Lecky, Leaders of Pub. Op. in Ire- 
land, p. 180— Woodfalls Pari. Debates, II, 370.) 

Grattan stated that of the votes cast for the Union, only 
seven were unbribed. (Hardy's Life of Grattan, V, 113.) 

"Bribery was unconcealed. The terms of the pur- 
chase were quite familiar in those days. The price of 
a single vote was £8,000 in money, or an office worth 
£2,000 a year if the parties did not choose to take ready 
money. Some got both for their votes." (O'Connell 
(1843), Dublin Corp. on Repeal, p. 31.) 

"There were near three million pounds ($15,000,000) 
expended in actual payment of the persons who voted for 
the Union." (O'Connell's Argiunent in Reg. v. O'Con- 
nell.) 

"The basest corruption and artifice were excited to 
promote the Union." (Lord Chief Justice Bushe 
(1800), cited in defendant's argument, Reg. v. O'Con- 
nell.) 

io 



For a few of the titles and religious offices granted as bribes, 
see the correspondence of Comwallis, Vol. Ill, pp. 209-219. 
For some of the money bribes given confirming O'Connell's state- 
ments, see the same. Vol. Ill, pp. 151-228. 

"It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that anything 
in the gift of the Crown in Ireland, in the Church, the 
Army, the Law, the Revenue was uniformly and steadily 
directed to the single object of carrying the Union." 
(Lecky, Hist, of Eng., 18th Cent. VIII, 405.) 

Before the English Government ventured to propose the 
Union, it offered a £10 bounty to every Irish soldier who would 
enlist for foreign service. Ten regiments so enlisted were shipped 
abroad and replaced by ten English regiments; though England 
was engaged in a bitter continental struggle, Ireland was held by 
130,000 armed men. (Castlereagh, Corresp. Ill, 210, 211.) 
(Sir Isaac Butt, Nov. 18, 1873.) 

The Act of Union was attempted while "our country is 
(was) filled with British troops . . . whilst the Habeas Corpus 
Act is (was) suspended— whilst trials by court-martial are (were) 
carrying on in many parts of the kingdom — whilst the people are 
(were) taught to think they have (had) no right to meet or delib- 
erate." (Lord Plunkett— Irish ParHament, 1800.) 

Whether there was coercion or not is shown by the following 
table : 

In Ireland in 1797 before the rebelHon, there were 78,995 
British soldiers. 

In Ireland in 1798 during the rebellion, there were 91,999 
British soldiers. 

In Ireland in 1798 after the rebellion, there were 114,052 

British soldiers. 

In Ireland in 1800 at time of Act of Union, there were 129,258 
British soldiers. 

(O'Connell, to Dublin Corp. on Repeal, p. 43.) 

In fact, Cornwallis in addition to the above was offered by 
the English Government 5,000 Russian troops, the assistance of 
which he declined. (Cornwallis Corresp. Ill, 137-138.) 

The Act of Union may best be summed up in the words of 
the said English historian and the said English statesman as 
follows : 

"It seems to me idle to dispute the essentially cor- 
rupt character of the means by which the Union was 

11 



carried." (Lecky, Hist, of Eng., 18th Cent., p. 395.) 
"The Union as it was carried was a crime of the deep- 
est turpitude." (Lecky, Leaders of Pub. Opinion in 
Ireland, p. 82.) 

"The blackest and foulest transaction in the history 
of man." (Gladstone, June 28, 1886.) 

The Act of Union was therefore void upon the ground that it 
was secured only by the illegal means above set forth. 



(b) WAS IT THE VALID ACT OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT ? 

It is also an elementary principle of constitutional law that 
the power of legislation delegated to a legislature cannot be 
further delegated. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. This 
principle is set forth in text books and decisions, too numer- 
ous to mention. 

"It is a general principle of constitutional law that the 
power conferred upon the legislature by the constitution, 
to make laws, cannot be delegated by that body to any 
other person or authority, in any such manner as to 
preclude the resumption of the power, or of its exercise, 
whenever the public interest required it. The legislators 
are the agents or trustees of the people, and they have 
no right or power to place the trust irrevocably in other 
hands than their own." (Black's Constitutional Law, 
p. 374, sec. 143.) 

"A constitution (form of government) can be amended 
or changed only by the parties creating or giving sanction 
to the constitution. Ordinarily a legislature has power 
only to propose amendments which are usually required 
to be submitted to the people. As a general rule rati- 
fication by a vote of the people is essential to the validity 
of the amendment." (8 Cyc. 806 — cases cited.) 

It may be well, however, to cite some authorities upon this 
point which apply directly to England and Ireland. 

A book on Government, by Locke, was used as a text book 
in England and in Trinity College, Dublin, to justify the Revo- 
lution of 1688 and to prove that James II had no title to the 
throne, and that William was the lawful monarch. It was sig- 
nificantly withdrawn from Trinity College after the Act of Union. 
It is stated in Locke on Government that: 

"The legislators cannot transfer the power of making 
laws into other hands, for it being but a delegated 
power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it 

12 



over to others. The people alone can appoint the form 
of the Commonwealth. . . . The power of the legislature 
being derived from the people by a positive voluntary 
grant and institution can be no other than what the posi- 
tive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws and 
not to make legislatures, the legislature can have no 
power to transfer their authority of making laws, or to 
place it in other hands." 

Again : 

"If a Legislative Union should be so forced upon this 
country against the will of its inhabitants, it would be a 
ntdlity, and resistance to it woiild be a struggle against 
usurpation and not a resistance against law." (Atty. 
Gen. Saurin, Mar. 15, 1800.) 

The attempt therefore of the Irish Parliament of 1800 was 
to delegate to the British Parliament the right to legislate for 
Ireland, to pass its trust to another legislative body. The mat- 
ter cannot be put more clearly than it has been by the British 
Historian Lecky, who stated that the Irish Parliament elected 
in 1797, 

"when there was no question of a Union, transferred its 
own rights and the rights of its constituents to another 
Legislature, and that was accomplished without any ap- 
peal to the electors by a dissolution." (Lecky, Hist, of 
Eng., in 18th Cent., p. 321.) 

The Act of Union was never referred to the Irish people for 
their assent. That such referendum is essential to its validity, 
may at once be seen, by consulting the portions of Chief Justice 
Marshall's opinion in McCullough v. Maryland, quoted above. 

The precise effect of such attempt of the Irish Parliament 
may be most concisely summed up in the words of Daniel O'Con- 
nell, as follows : 

"The Union is totally void in point of principle and 
of constitutional force. . . . The Irish people nominated 
them (the Parliament) to make laws, and not legisla- 
tures. They were appointed to act under the Constitu- 
tion and not annihilate it. Their delegation from the 
people was confined within the limits of the Constitution, 
and the moment the Irish Parliament went beyond those 
limits and destroyed the Constitution, that moment it 
annihilated its own power, but could not annihilate the 
immortal spirit of liberty, which belongs, as a rightful in- 
heritance, to the people of Ireland. . . . The Union is 
not supported by Constitutional right. . . . The Union, 

13 



therefore ... is totally void ... is an unconstitutional 
law ... is not fated to last long." (Daniel O'Connell at 
Mullaghmast, 1843.) 

"It (the Union) was no compact, no bargain, but it 
was an act of the most decided tyranny and corruption 
that was ever yet perpetrated. Trial by jiuy was sus- 
pended . . . courts martial sat, throughout the land . . . 
and the County of Kildare among others flowed with 
blood." (Daniel O'Connell at Mullaghmast, 1843.) 



(c) THE RIGHT OF DAIL EIREANN TO LEGISLATE FOR 

IRELAND. 

The right of Dail Eireann to sit and legislate for Ireland, to 
bring about a change in government, proclaiming the Irish Re- 
public, has been questioned as being an unconstitutional exercise 
of power. It rests solely and squarely upon the sovereignty of 
the Irish people, whose will was made so manifestly clear by the 
December, 1918, elections. 

Ample precedent for such right of the Dail Eireann is found 
even in England. In 1660 the "Parliament," abolishing the 
Commonwealth, and restoring Charles II as King, was assembled 
by writs not running from the Commonwealth. The acts of 
that "Parliament" have been held valid. After James II fled 
from England about 90 of the Lords petitioned William of Orange 
to issue writs for a Convention. Though without authority from 
the Government of James II this was done, and its acts, declaring 
James II to have abdicated and declaring William and Mary, 
King and Queen, were held valid. These two "unconstitutional" 
conventions wrought most important changes in England's Gov- 
ernment. The Dail Eireann has a far stronger constitutional 
basis, and its claim of effecting a change in the form of Ireland's 
Government is far more sound than the claim of the above men- 
tioned English conventions or "Parliaments." 

The falsity of the analogy between the Civil War of 1861 
and Ireland's present assertion of her right to recognition is, 
therefore, manifest. In America it was a voluntary agreement 
deliberately entered into by the people of a single nation, and an 
attempt to break that agreement. The Act of Union and its 
effects concerned the people of two nations. In Ireland there 
was no voluntary agreement by the people, but an ultra vires act 
of an um-epresentative legislature secured by means of fraud, 
bribery, corruption, coercion and duress, ineffective to surrender 

14 



Ireland's sovereignty, and a constant denial of the validity of 
the Act, and a persistent effort upon Ireland's part from that 
time to date to assert and maintain that sovereignty. 

(d) ULSTER AND SECESSION. 

The analogy of secession is true, however, if applied to the 
northeast portion of Ulster in its attempt to be "partitioned" 
from the rest of Ireland. In this situation there is Ireland, a 
geographical, economic, political and national unit; there is the 
attempt of a portion of the Irish citizenry, the Irish people, to 
set at naught the will of the majority, to separate a portion 
of the nation's territory from the rest of it, and to set up a new 
state. 

Ireland has always been a unit. It was never a federation of 
sovereign states, such as we had prior to 1789 in the colonies. 
There is less justification then for Ulster's separation movement 
than there was for the attempt of the southern states in 1861. 

The Irish people constitute one citizenry, one people. The 
Ulsterites are Irish, and have been for centuries. The Ulster- 
ites in the northeast portion of the province must fall into one of 

two classes: _,„,, ^,^,„.,,,.Trn 

1. IRISH CITIZENS. 

2. BRITISH COLONISTS. 

If they are Irish citizens, true democracy requires that the 
political minority subordinate its will, to that of the majority. 
Democratic government and institutions can exist and survive 
only upon the basis of majority rule. The rule of the minority 
is oligarchy. If the Ulster Unionists fall into class I, they must 
abide by the will of the majority of the Irish citizenry, which is 
overwhelmingly against "partition." 

If they fall into class II, they are "aliens" in Ireland, and as 
such aliens have no right to any say as to what the form of govern- 
ment in Ireland shall be, or what territory shall be within its jur- 
isdiction. They would have no more right to a voice in Ireland's 
government than an unnaturaHzed alien has in the Government 
of the United States. 

In either event Ulster's demand for "partition" is unconsti- 
tutional and secessionist. It is only to this situation that the 
argument of "secession" can apply. 



15 



LIBRPIRY OF CONGRESS 



021 377 772 5 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ^ 

021 377 772 5 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



